toml
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by toml on Apr 23, 2011 13:38:01 GMT -5
It's suprising that no one is asking that question. Scripture is plain that the government is in the hand of God, that He appoints the governing authorities. Romans 13. Doesn't it seem like we have a government that is punishing us? Why would God allow them to do that? What about the extreme weather we've been having? There is plenty Scipture to show that God controls the weather. It sure seems to me that God is using the weather to punish us. But why? Maybe you don't see the wickedness in America. But America has wickedness a plenty. There is a way for this land to be healed. It's found in II Chronilcles 7.14, which states, "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." If only the people of God in America would repent of their evil way. But, instead of repenting, they make excuses for the evil ways that they do. Until the people of God in America repents, we will continue to go down the road to destruction. Nothing the government does will ever thwart the wrath of God. Romans 1.18-32 states, When are the people of God in America going to start listening to Him?  |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Apr 24, 2011 10:38:53 GMT -5
Tom,
We are preterists. We believe that God is no longer angry with anyone. Therefore, we would never ask such a question.
Please do not misunderstand. We believe there is plenty wickedness to go around. Roman's 5:12-14 tells us quite plainly that man sinned before man fell. The fall was caused not by sin, but by sinning after the law was given.
Man always has been and always will be wicked.
|
|
toml
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by toml on Apr 24, 2011 11:32:36 GMT -5
Tom, We are preterists. We believe that God is no longer angry with anyone. Therefore, we would never ask such a question. Please do not misunderstand. We believe there is plenty wickedness to go around. Roman's 5:12-14 tells us quite plainly that man sinned before man fell. The fall was caused not by sin, but by sinning after the law was given. Man always has been and always will be wicked. Well, I am one preterist that believes God is angry with the His people in the United States. I do not believe that God has ended His ministrations at 70 AD as some might. God has not gone on vacation and left the world to fend for itself. He still has a people on this planet. A people whom He loves, and that still need to be chastized at times. A people whom He blesses for obedience. I urge you to read Romans 1.18-32. Is the wrath of God no longer revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men? Is God no longer concerned about those who supress the truth in unrighteousness? Is God no longer concerned about those who worship the creature rather than the Creator? Can we not look at creation and see the invisible attributes of God? Does God do nothing about those who exchange the truth of God for a lie, as many do today? This is not addressing people of the world, but the people of God, just as He did many times to His Old Covenant people. This is addressing the holders of the truth, which are the people of God. You cannot suppress the truth if you don't have the truth. Likewise, you can not exchange the truth if you do not have the truth. The Old Covenant may have to come to an end as is written in Hebrews, but that doesn't mean we can't learn from it. We need to heed what is written in II Chronicles 7.14, if we want our land to be healed. It saddens me to see the people of God in America so messed up.  |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Apr 24, 2011 17:45:57 GMT -5
Tom,
Your understanding of Romans 1:18-32 ignores vss. 16-17. The issue is salvation. The Jews were blocking the truth of salvation. This is the unrighteousness that God WAS revealing his wrath against. The Jews were the creation of that passage.
|
|
toml
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by toml on Apr 25, 2011 0:23:24 GMT -5
Tom, Your understanding of Romans 1:18-32 ignores vss. 16-17. The issue is salvation. The Jews were blocking the truth of salvation. This is the unrighteousness that God WAS revealing his wrath against. The Jews were the creation of that passage. 1. I did not ignore verses 16-17, they are not a part of my chosen text for the purposes of the points I am making. 2. The issue of the OP is not salvation, it is the wrath of God as revealed to America. 3. I would appreciate you keeping your junk theology out of my threads, and stay on point. I will not discuss covenant creation with you. I am simply applying the principles of Romans 1.18-32 to America.  |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Apr 25, 2011 10:18:49 GMT -5
1. I did not ignore verses 16-17, they are not a part of my chosen text for the purposes of the points I am making. 2. The issue of the OP is not salvation, it is the wrath of God as revealed to America. 3. I would appreciate you keeping your junk theology out of my threads, and stay on point. I will not discuss covenant creation with you. I am simply applying the principles of Romans 1.18-32 to America. Tom, 1. Vss. 16-17 are the point of the text. 2. The issue of the text is salvation. 3. I would appreciate you keeping your junk theology out of Scripture. I will continue to point out where you are twisting Scripture out of context. You are simply inventing principles that are not found in Romans 1:18-32. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Apr 25, 2011 16:37:25 GMT -5
No "trash talk" here, please. By that, I refer to calling what someone else believes "junk" theology. It's only "junk" because it's not what you believe (the point I think Jeff was making by throwing the term back at you, Tom).
It's no secret that Christians believe differently about various aspects of theology. Let's have respect for one another.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Apr 25, 2011 17:50:44 GMT -5
Hi Tom, You said: I am simply applying the principles of Romans 1.18-32 to America. Read more: www.livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=recent#ixzz1KZrNVZoDI think the principles of this chapter are not that God is bringing wrath down on a future nation which may or may not be distorting truth but rather the wrath of God is upon the people He had in mind who had rejected His Son even after having lived in and among the prophets who proclaimed His coming. Paul's whole message in Romans was to make an attempt at changing the hearts of people who had been rejecting Christ even as He (Jesus) lived among them. Yes, of course bad judgment befalls people who turn away from truth and follow a path of destruction but this is not applied the same way to a nation (not necessarily that is) 2000 years from that time. Under the blood of Christ there are two kinds of people - those who believe and those who don't. God does not force Himself on a nation in the way you seem to be indicating. Otherwise why not a Katrina every week of the year. Christian Zionist claim that every time Israel has a bad day that it is America's fault somehow and so God is going to bring some flood or tornado or earthquake in those places where those things normally occur anyway. God's business is not to protect His believers from those nasty politicians. If that was so then Jesus would have asked that His disciples be removed from the world. But He did not pray that. He prayed that they stay. Does He love me less? |
|
toml
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by toml on Apr 26, 2011 3:15:42 GMT -5
Hi Tom, You said: I am simply applying the principles of Romans 1.18-32 to America. Read more: www.livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=recent#ixzz1KZrNVZoDI think the principles of this chapter are not that God is bringing wrath down on a future nation which may or may not be distorting truth but rather the wrath of God is upon the people He had in mind who had rejected His Son even after having lived in and among the prophets who proclaimed His coming. Paul's whole message in Romans was to make an attempt at changing the hearts of people who had been rejecting Christ even as He (Jesus) lived among them. Yes, of course bad judgment befalls people who turn away from truth and follow a path of destruction but this is not applied the same way to a nation (not necessarily that is) 2000 years from that time. Under the blood of Christ there are two kinds of people - those who believe and those who don't. God does not force Himself on a nation in the way you seem to be indicating. Otherwise why not a Katrina every week of the year. Christian Zionist claim that every time Israel has a bad day that it is America's fault somehow and so God is going to bring some flood or tornado or earthquake in those places where those things normally occur anyway. God's business is not to protect His believers from those nasty politicians. If that was so then Jesus would have asked that His disciples be removed from the world. But He did not pray that. He prayed that they stay. Does He love me less? Allyn. I am not quite sure what you are saying. Are you suggestin there are know eternal principles that govern the action of God's people today? And, I believe you misunderstood parts of what I said. I am not suggesting that God is in the business of protecting us from nasty politicians. I am suggesting that God raises up nasty politicians to punish His people that have gone astray. God has always chastized His people for for idolatry. Why would that be any different today? |
|
toml
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by toml on Apr 26, 2011 3:26:12 GMT -5
No "trash talk" here, please. By that, I refer to calling what someone else believes "junk" theology. It's only "junk" because it's not what you believe (the point I think Jeff was making by throwing the term back at you, Tom). It's no secret that Christians believe differently about various aspects of theology. Let's have respect for one another. Mine is not "trash talk." Mine is a statement of fact. The theology he is trying to slip into this thread is junk theology. Once again he is trying to hijack another thread to promote the lie of Covenant Creationism. Why can't you tell him to stay on point. This thread has nothing to do with CC - absolutely nothing. Yet he tried to slip it in. Doesn't he know anything else? And why are you so eager to come to his defense? Is he a darling of the preterist movement, or something. Is it that he's been to college, and I'm stupid? It seems everytime he wants to hijack a thread he get's away with it. Why? :frustrated: |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Apr 26, 2011 6:50:52 GMT -5
Tom, you have asked, is God angry with America? Well, a long time ago I learned that God has a settled attitude about sin. America, like every other nation on earth, is a nation of mostly unsaved people. If He has any anger at all it is the fact that America on a whole has not chosen His Son over the the things of this world. But why should the unsaved do what they have not an inclination to do? Don't they need preachers and teachers. Don't they need to recognize that knock on the door before even considering anything but what they already know?. America is not being judged by the things many of this country are doing - judgment has already been given. The outcome for living in sin is already determined. What more can God do above what He has already done? He stands at the door and knocks. Is anyone listening?
|
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Apr 26, 2011 8:32:54 GMT -5
Tom, Your understanding of Romans 1:18-32 ignores vss. 16-17. The issue is salvation. The Jews were blocking the truth of salvation. This is the unrighteousness that God WAS revealing his wrath against. The Jews were the creation of that passage. 1. I did not ignore verses 16-17, they are not a part of my chosen text for the purposes of the points I am making. 2. The issue of the OP is not salvation, it is the wrath of God as revealed to America. 3. I would appreciate you keeping your junk theology out of my threads, and stay on point. I will not discuss covenant creation with you. I am simply applying the principles of Romans 1.18-32 to America. Good morning. Tom, could you please point out where Jeff attempted to apply covenant creation within his answer to you on your topic. Thanks. Steve |
|
toml
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by toml on Apr 26, 2011 18:00:18 GMT -5
Tom, you have asked, is God angry with America? Well, a long time ago I learned that God has a settled attitude about sin. America, like every other nation on earth, is a nation of mostly unsaved people. If He has any anger at all it is the fact that America on a whole has not chosen His Son over the the things of this world. But why should the unsaved do what they have not an inclination to do? Don't they need preachers and teachers. Don't they need to recognize that knock on the door before even considering anything but what they already know?. America is not being judged by the things many of this country are doing - judgment has already been given. The outcome for living in sin is already determined. What more can God do above what He has already done? He stands at the door and knocks. Is anyone listening? I did not ask "is God angry with America." I asked, "WHY Is God Angry With America?" In the OP, I specified "the people of God in America," as it is written that judgment begins with the household of faith. As I said, I don't believe all of God's ministrations ended at 70 AD. We are in an eternal age, therefore His ministrations are eternal. |
|
toml
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by toml on Apr 26, 2011 18:43:13 GMT -5
1. I did not ignore verses 16-17, they are not a part of my chosen text for the purposes of the points I am making. 2. The issue of the OP is not salvation, it is the wrath of God as revealed to America. 3. I would appreciate you keeping your junk theology out of my threads, and stay on point. I will not discuss covenant creation with you. I am simply applying the principles of Romans 1.18-32 to America. Good morning. Tom, could you please point out where Jeff attempted to apply covenant creation within his answer to you on your topic. Thanks. Steve Hi Steve, It was this statement; "The Jews were the creation of that passage." I think he was referring to verse 20 which states, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." I understand creation here refers to the creation of Genesis 1 & 2. If creation here does refer to the creation of Genesis 1 & 2, and if the Jews were the creation in this passage as Jeff states, then Genesis 1 & 2 is about the creation of the Jews. The Jews are, among other things, the people of the covenant, and that leads Genesis 1 & 2 being about the creation of the covenant. And that is part of the the doctrine known as Covenant Creation. I call it junk theology because it is untrue, and can't be proved. For CC to be true, Adam would have had to be the first person of covenant, and there is no proof of that. Adam would have had to be the first Jew, because the covenants pertained to the Jews. But, the Jews were descendants of Israel, and Adam was not a descendant of Israel. And before someone brings it up, I did not say I would not discuss Covenant Creation - I said I would not discuss it with Jeff. And the only reason I went into it here is to answer Steve's question, and under the circumstances, I think it was an appropriate question. Have I answered your question Steve? |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Apr 26, 2011 19:26:36 GMT -5
Well Tom, to answer your question - God is not angry with America. God is strictly opposed to the rejection of His Son through an unrepentant heart of the unbeliever. God does not cause walls to fall on people for their sin just as Jesus said. Your premise is in error.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Apr 26, 2011 19:31:33 GMT -5
I did not ask "is God angry with America." I asked, "WHY Is God Angry With America?" In the OP, I specified "the people of God in America," as it is written that judgment begins with the household of faith. Tom, No one else here appears to agree with you that God is angry with America. And if any of us agreed with your premise, we disagree with your reason as to why. You have called disagreement with your view, untrue, junk theology, and a lie. You refuse to discuss the verses you've brought up and why you believe they can be applied out of context. What is there to discuss? You have your view. You refuse to explain your view. You refuse to consider any other view. Your apparent purpose for this thread is to mope and whine to yourself, in public. Enjoy yourself. By the way, according to Paul, those in Christ are a new creation, old things become new. The old things were necessarily then Paul's old creation, or just creation. It doesn't require Covenant Creation to see that the creation in Paul's writings are God's people. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Apr 26, 2011 21:18:14 GMT -5
(KJV) Romans 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation [KTISIS - Strong's G2937] of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(ESV) Mark 16:15 - And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation [KTISIS - Strong's G2937].
(ESV) Colossians 1:23 - If indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation [KTISIS - Strong's G2937] under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
If the ktisis is physical material creation of the planets, etc., one has to wonder how Tom could explain Jesus' command to preach the Gospel to all creation (ktisis) in Mark 16:15. One also has to wonder how it was fulfilled by the Apostle Paul in Colossians 1:23...maybe Paul preached to the insects, bears, and trees as well.
Another notable verse that contravenes a physical material view of Genesis 1 and 2:
Romans 8:21 - That the creation (ktisis) itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
If Tom is still waiting for his view of Genesis creation to be set free from bondage and corruption (which is associated with the Old covenant - i.e. Romans 8:15), then he is a futurist and not a preterist. This whole passage from Romans 8 cannot be physical material creation of the planets and the universe because it NECESSITATES futurism. I believe this was part of Sam Frost's undoing and will continue to be the undoing of many other preterists.
I would strongly urge an honest and objective study on the usages of ktisis (Strong's 2937). To me, there is not one single use of the word commonly translated "world" (aion, kosmos, oikumene) that refers to the planet Earth. I would recommend looking at a few other translations to see how ktisis is translated. The KJV does a horrible job!
|
|
toml
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by toml on Apr 26, 2011 22:32:30 GMT -5
Well Tom, to answer your question - God is not angry with America. God is strictly opposed to the rejection of His Son through an unrepentant heart of the unbeliever. God does not cause walls to fall on people for their sin just as Jesus said. Your premise is in error. So you believe that God's minstrations ended in 70AD? |
|
toml
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by toml on Apr 26, 2011 22:43:21 GMT -5
I did not ask "is God angry with America." I asked, "WHY Is God Angry With America?" In the OP, I specified "the people of God in America," as it is written that judgment begins with the household of faith. Tom, No one else here appears to agree with you that God is angry with America. And if any of us agreed with your premise, we disagree with your reason as to why. You have called disagreement with your view, untrue, junk theology, and a lie. You refuse to discuss the verses you've brought up and why you believe they can be applied out of context. I don't call disagreement with me "junk theology." I did not call what Allyn said as "junk theology." I have only called Covenant Creationism "junk theology." I have only refused to discuss Covenant Creationism with you. You lied on both accounts. How can you be trusted to properly interpret the Bible when you can't even properly interpret what I said? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Apr 27, 2011 1:06:47 GMT -5
How can you be trusted to properly interpret the Bible when you can't even properly interpret what I said? Tom, You started this thread calling your Christian brothers in America, "wicked," claiming they (we?) all need to "repent of their evil way," and accused us all of not listening to God. Are you now denying that you did so? I didn't mention Covenant Creation. I mentioned Paul's use of the word creation. How can you be trusted to properly interpret the Bible when you can't even properly interpret what I said? |
|
toml
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by toml on Apr 27, 2011 5:50:22 GMT -5
How can you be trusted to properly interpret the Bible when you can't even properly interpret what I said? Tom, You started this thread calling your Christian brothers in America, "wicked," claiming they (we?) all need to "repent of their evil way," and accused us all of not listening to God. Are you now denying that you did so? I didn't mention Covenant Creation. I mentioned Paul's use of the word creation. How can you be trusted to properly interpret the Bible when you can't even properly interpret what I said? I was being diplomatic in the OP, but the truth is, most who call themselves Christians in America are not Christians at all. They are part of a pagan religion that calls itself "Christianity." And, no, I am not denying what I said. But you are apparently denying what you said. Did you not say, "The Jews were the creation of that passage"? Is that not a sneaky way to hijack this thread to discuss Covenant Creation? That is how I took it. Why else would you say, "The Jews were the creation of that passage"? There is nothing in Romans 1 that suggests that Jews are the creation in Romans 1. The fact is you twist Scripture until you get the conclusion you are looking for. Most here know this to be true, but they seem timid and maybe fearful of challenging you. But I am not. If you want a proper debate on Covenant Creation come over to my site (Son of David Forums), where I can debate it as it should be debated. |
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Apr 27, 2011 7:04:09 GMT -5
Good morning. Tom, could you please point out where Jeff attempted to apply covenant creation within his answer to you on your topic. Thanks. Steve Hi Steve, It was this statement; "The Jews were the creation of that passage." I think he was referring to verse 20 which states, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." I understand creation here refers to the creation of Genesis 1 & 2. If creation here does refer to the creation of Genesis 1 & 2, and if the Jews were the creation in this passage as Jeff states, then Genesis 1 & 2 is about the creation of the Jews. The Jews are, among other things, the people of the covenant, and that leads Genesis 1 & 2 being about the creation of the covenant. And that is part of the the doctrine known as Covenant Creation. I call it junk theology because it is untrue, and can't be proved. For CC to be true, Adam would have had to be the first person of covenant, and there is no proof of that. Adam would have had to be the first Jew, because the covenants pertained to the Jews. But, the Jews were descendants of Israel, and Adam was not a descendant of Israel. And before someone brings it up, I did not say I would not discuss Covenant Creation - I said I would not discuss it with Jeff. And the only reason I went into it here is to answer Steve's question, and under the circumstances, I think it was an appropriate question. Have I answered your question Steve? Good morning Tom. Thanks. Yes, you answered my question. Jeff stated earlier that the "creation" in Romans is God's people, the Jews. Ted did a good job of providing the definition of the word creation. I was going to do that. I believe that Ted confirms that Jeff was correct. Nothing mentioned about CC in those statements, it's just a good, solid, consistent word study. Vs. 31 states clearly that it was the "covenantbreakers" (v.31) who rejected these claims of God and His Son. This is the "creation" spoken of in v. 20. The Jews were the only ones under a covenant with God. As Ted said, Paul did not preach to the animals, trees or rocks. Allyn stated it well when he says that God is not angry with America and does not cause walls to fall on people for their sin. God's justice was completely satisfied with the finished work of Jesus. Tom, I love the preterist, fulfilled viewpoint as I'm sure you do too. The Bible truly does come alive once more for me when I allow the words that the Holy Spirit chose to reveal to the apostles to mean what they meant to those in the 1st century, not 21st century man. It gives an entirely new understanding to these verses. Blessings. Steve |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Apr 27, 2011 7:08:05 GMT -5
Well Tom, to answer your question - God is not angry with America. God is strictly opposed to the rejection of His Son through an unrepentant heart of the unbeliever. God does not cause walls to fall on people for their sin just as Jesus said. Your premise is in error. So you believe that God's minstrations ended in 70AD? Tom, I am saying that God works with individuals. Israel is gone, there is now no Old Covenant system. God may or may not deal with mankind using the raising up and taking down of governments but I am certain that God does not destroy His people who are under Grace while He is dealing with those who are not saved. You ask "Why is God angry with America?" and I ask what makes you think He is? A tornado in tornado alley is not the gauge we use. A hurricane in hurricane season is not the gauge we use. An earthquake in a fault zone is not the gauge we use. Does God condemn a whole nation when he has already said to His people to live in the world but not to be a part of the world? Will He wipe out the family across the street from who lives next door to the child molester using natural means to do so? Tom, I hate to say it but your theology in this matter is not what I see the Bible teaching. Dispensationalists believe that some soon day in the future God will become so angry with the world that He is going to destroy the whole world because of it. The only difference is that dispensationalists say the rapture will save the church. Who or what saves the church in your method of thinking? It seems to me, Tom, that if God is punishing America in the way you think He might be then God is not a very good shot. It seems to be hit and miss application. Wouldn't it be more reasonable that if God wanted to punish America that a direct shot on Washington DC would be in order. And look at all the penitentiaries hold all those criminals. One huge lightning bolt should do the trick. But instead your God of judgment is killing the faithful with the guilty. Hardly seems like something our God would do in light of the fact that He demands we live in this world. What possible chance do we have then? Tom, I am only trying to reason with you.  |
|
|
|
Post by lumberjack on Apr 27, 2011 8:51:31 GMT -5
God said He never changes. So, does His nature change ? I'm starting to see parallels between FP doctrine and dispensational doctrine. Where does it say that God's judgement, anger and wrath will cease in the New Covenant Age ? Jesus said " I am with you till the end of ( this New Covenant ) age. " Go and Make Disciples of the Nations. "
THE QUESTION ! What exactly is a DISCIPLE ? According to the command of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Apr 27, 2011 10:00:26 GMT -5
Did you not say, "The Jews were the creation of that passage"? Is that not a sneaky way to hijack this thread to discuss Covenant Creation? That is how I took it. Why else would you say, "The Jews were the creation of that passage"? There is nothing in Romans 1 that suggests that Jews are the creation in Romans 1. Tom, I already told you why> Paul said we are the new creation. People. Not planet. In the verses you ignored, Paul stated his topic. Salvation of people. The people, the creation of that time, needs salvation. My use their has always been non-controversial among preterists. King, Preston, Bell, Scott, even partial preterists have made the same claim. To make your claims in the OP, you must deny what preterists, even preterists who deny Covenant Creation, commonly teach. You have not demonstrated one example of where I twist Scripture. You have yet to actually challenge me or any thing I have written. All you do is call names. As for the others here, they have challenged me. We even had a debate. My opponent lost every single point. You've called me a liar. Interesting how every single claim in that last paragraph of your is false. You are incapable of the truth. I'll be a bit more charitable with you Delilah. Why would I go to another board to suffer your name calling? You've proven nothing. You are incapable of proving anything. All you ever do is get madder and madder until you delete your account and go home. Several preterists have responded to this thread. Not one of us agrees that God is angry with America. Not one of us agrees with that your basis for that anger. Go spew your venom over on your site and quit spreading it here. |
|
toml
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by toml on Apr 27, 2011 11:12:08 GMT -5
Tom, I love the preterist, fulfilled viewpoint as I'm sure you do too. The Bible truly does come alive once more for me when I allow the words that the Holy Spirit chose to reveal to the apostles to mean what they meant to those in the 1st century, not 21st century man. It gives an entirely new understanding to these verses. Blessings. Steve I am not sure anymore. I am on the verge of returning to my previous state of uncertainty. That is where I was at before becoming a preterist. I may need more proof now. For example, there is all kind of evidence that the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. But there is no evidence that the return of Christ occurred in 70 AD. Nothing physical, anyway. So we say it was a spiritual event totally unnoticed by human beings. It is this spiritual fulfillment that led to some to embrace doctrines just as unprovable. So, I am not sure anymore.  |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Apr 27, 2011 11:15:54 GMT -5
Jesus said " I am with you till the end of ( this New Covenant ) age. Lumberjack, Jesus said, "I am with you till the end of the (then current, Old Covenant) age." We have a fundamental disagreement in understanding of that verse. Further interpretation based on our respective understandings would further diverge and seem senseless without each side carefully understanding the other. |
|
toml
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by toml on Apr 27, 2011 11:17:34 GMT -5
God said He never changes. So, does His nature change ? I'm starting to see parallels between FP doctrine and dispensational doctrine. Where does it say that God's judgement, anger and wrath will cease in the New Covenant Age ? Jesus said " I am with you till the end of ( this New Covenant ) age. " Go and Make Disciples of the Nations. " THE QUESTION ! What exactly is a DISCIPLE ? According to the command of God. Thank you Lumberjack, that's the way I see it as well. For the rest, what is meant by, "Judgment begins at the household of faith"? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Apr 27, 2011 11:38:49 GMT -5
God said He never changes. So, does His nature change ? I'm starting to see parallels between FP doctrine and dispensational doctrine. Where does it say that God's judgement, anger and wrath will cease in the New Covenant Age ? Jesus said " I am with you till the end of ( this New Covenant ) age. " Go and Make Disciples of the Nations. " THE QUESTION ! What exactly is a DISCIPLE ? According to the command of God. Thank you Lumberjack, that's the way I see it as well. For the rest, what is meant by, "Judgment begins at the household of faith"? This is one particular judgment. Not judgment in general. The preceding verse, the "judgment" against Christians is persecution, Not judgment for actions against God, but judgment for actions God desires. Again. Another case of taking a passage out of context and applying it to something completely contrary to what it means. |
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Apr 27, 2011 12:08:03 GMT -5
Tom, I love the preterist, fulfilled viewpoint as I'm sure you do too. The Bible truly does come alive once more for me when I allow the words that the Holy Spirit chose to reveal to the apostles to mean what they meant to those in the 1st century, not 21st century man. It gives an entirely new understanding to these verses. Blessings. Steve I am not sure anymore. I am on the verge of returning to my previous state of uncertainty. That is where I was at before becoming a preterist. I may need more proof now. For example, there is all kind of evidence that the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. But there is no evidence that the return of Christ occurred in 70 AD. Nothing physical, anyway. So we say it was a spiritual event totally unnoticed by human beings. It is this spiritual fulfillment that led to some to embrace doctrines just as unprovable. So, I am not sure anymore. Tom. No evidence that Jesus didn't return? Yes there is. Luke 21:5 has the disciples pointing out the temple and how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts. In the next verse Jesus says that the days are coming when there won't be "not left one stone upon another, that shall no be thrown down." They then ask him saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign [will there be] when these things shall come to pass? In Matthew 24:3 it says, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? Mark 13:4 says, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled? Jesus gives us the timely answer in Luke 21:20, And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 2 verses later Jesus says that For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. And going to Luke 21:27 Jesus says while keeping on the same topic, "And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." How do we know it happened in 70AD? Luke 21:32, Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.Not once does Jesus change the topic, nor does he say this is for 2000 years in the future. It happened at the destruction Jerusalem in 70AD. The Son of man came in the glory of his Father in a cloud with power and great glory. This an excerpt from David B. Curtis. www.ecclesia.org/truth/mat07.htmlGod's "coming on the clouds of heaven" is a symbolic way of speaking of His presence, judgment and salvation. All through the Old Testament God was coming "on clouds," in salvation of His people and judgment of His enemies. Coming on the clouds indicates His Presence: Exodus 16:10; 19:9; 34:5, Leviticus 16:2, Numbers 11:25. Salvation: In Psalms 18:9-12, David speaks of his deliverance from Saul using apocalyptic language. Judgment: The idea of God's coming in the clouds is also associated with His judgment of his enemies (Isaiah 19:1). We know from chapter 20 that God used the Assyrians as instruments of His wrath on Egypt, yet it says, "The LORD rides on a swift cloud..., Egypt will totter at His presence." God came to Egypt in judgment in 480BC. His presence was made known in judgment. But it was the Assyrians who were literally present. Similar language is used of Nineveh's fall (Nahum 1:3, 5-6): We know that Nineveh was destroyed, not by a literal coming of God out of heaven on the clouds, but by the invading armies of the Chaldeans and Medes in 612 BC. When Jesus said he would come on the clouds, He was using the apocalyptic language of the prophets to identify himself as the Messiah, the Judge. Caiaphas reacted the way he did because he knew that only God came on clouds, that was a claim to deity. He knew that Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah of Daniel 7. Notice what Jesus says to Caiaphas in Mark 14:62: Here it says that they will see Him "coming with the clouds of heaven" while He is "sitting at the right hand of the Power." If this is literal and bodily, how could He do both at the same time? This is clearly apocalyptic language. His coming with the clouds is proof of His sitting on the right hand of power. John Lightfoot says this, "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man. Then shall the Son of man give a proof of himself, who they would not before acknowledge: a proof, indeed, not in any visible figure, but in vengeance and judgment so visible, that all the tribes of the earth shall be forced to acknowledge him the avenger. The Jews would not know him: now they shall know him, whether they will or no, Isa. xxvi. II. Many times they asked of him a sign: now a sign shall appear, that he is the true Messiah, whom they despised, derided, and crucified, namely, his signal vengeance and fury, such as never any nation felt from the first foundations of the world. The evidence is in the words of Jesus and in the ruins of the Jerusalem temple. History records it was completely destroyed just as Jesus said it would be when He came back with our salvation. Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Steve |
|
